A controversial policy of destroying recordings of trials after seven years is to be abandoned, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has disclosed.

The policy, affecting courts in England and Wales, had been heavily criticised by lawyers and miscarriage of justice campaigners, who said the destruction of court records makes challenging a conviction almost impossible.

They point to cases like Omar Benguit – now the subject of a BBC Panorama investigation – where vital court records were erased.

Benguit’s legal team claim the transcripts from his three trials would have provided invaluable evidence for an appeal – but all were destroyed before they could be examined.

As a journalism lecturer carrying out research into court reporting, as well as miscarriages of justice, I was keen to investigate, and requested more information from the MoJ through Freedom of Information requests.

In its responses to me, the MoJ publicly disclosed for the first time that trial records will now be kept for at least as long as the prison sentence – and possibly indefinitely.

The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.

An MoJ spokesperson said: “This updated policy safeguards continued access to court records for the purpose of appeals, reviews or any other legal proceedings that may arise during the entire period of the sentence.

"Retaining records for the full length of the sentence preserves judicial integrity, and protects the rights of all parties concerned.”

Campaigners who fought for years to halt the policy of destroying court records have welcomed the announcement. Jon Robins, a lecturer at Brighton University and co-organiser of the Open Justice Charter, told me:

This is a sensible result – and a surprising and belated victory for our campaign. We pointed out more than a decade ago that there was no possible justification for such a draconian destruction policy, ever since our courts were dragged into the digital era and began recording proceedings – other than closing off the prospect of challenges from those claiming to be wrongly convicted. The unnecessary loss of court documents – especially, court transcripts and the audio recordings of court proceedings – has often proved an insurmountable barrier in the investigation of miscarriage of justice cases.

This is a sensible result – and a surprising and belated victory for our campaign. We pointed out more than a decade ago that there was no possible justification for such a draconian destruction policy, ever since our courts were dragged into the digital era and began recording proceedings – other than closing off the prospect of challenges from those claiming to be wrongly convicted.

The unnecessary loss of court documents – especially, court transcripts and the audio recordings of court proceedings – has often proved an insurmountable barrier in the investigation of miscarriage of justice cases.

The official guidance for how long records should be retained is set out in the crown court’s Record Retention and Disposition Schedule (RRDS). This........

© The Conversation